Originally posted by deanjo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Leading Cause Of The Recent Linux Kernel Power Problems
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostHindsight is 20-20. Comment posted after the article was published.
One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?
Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?
After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostThe context is provided by the original threads.
Yes, It has been proven now, and you'll find that I'm not disagreeing with that. It however only impacts a very small subset of systems.
Originally Posted by deanjo
Again that really doesn't prove anything. Until you can 100% prove and 100% replicate each of those reports you cannot say with certainty that they don't exist.
The reports are useless, if you can't or are unwilling to see that then I would question anything else that you have to say in relation to the issue.
Originally Posted by deanjo
You seem to miss an extremely simple concept here. Being not able to replicate is not proof that it does not exist. It only proves that you cannot replicate it.
I haven't missed any concept. To imply that I have shows that you either don't understand my comments, or that you are too arrogant to admit that I might be right.
Either way, it's your problem.
Actually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.
Oh I see. I provide sufficient evidence to show that this "major" regression is at most minor (see link above to the original post), and continue to argue against the non-proven bug is trolling? You have trolled every single one of my comments here, it seems that is your specialty.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostMeaningless, because I said it just the same. You claimed that I didn't and I have proven to have said it 7 days ago, deal with it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostGo ahead and re-read those entire threads. NOTHING is out of context.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostFirst of all you did not say "only impacts a very small subset of systems." You said "it doesn't exist". I pointed out to you back then that saying "it doesn't exits" because of you not experiencing it wasn't valid. So who fired the first shot?
I gave Michael the benefit of the doubt for months (which you can find me quoted as saying).
Originally posted by deanjo View PostActually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.
Where I said, and I quote:
I don't know that I would call this a kernel regression, as the kernel doesn't dynamically change parameters based on applied power state. That's what you need something like Jupiter for..
In that thread I also show two distinctly different platforms and how they don't show any symptom of the bug.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostNon proven? In the very same post you say it is proven.
If you follow the initial conversation fully, you'll have the context that sets up the rest of my comments on the matter across all of the related threads (which really says there are too many articles, and not enough action which was and remains my chief complaint). You'll also find several comments where I helped people check for kernel options needed test to determine if they have this "bug".
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View Post7 days ago is after the article was published. The article was written on the 26th of June. So you have proven that hindsight is indeed 20-20.
Comment
-
(third request)
One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?
Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?
After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostComprehension isn't your strong suit. I implied that the context was provided by the threads.
I did, because until it was proven to exist, it didn't exist. Now, I am saying that it only impacts a very small subset of devices which is true .. per the commit.
That's not my very first post. My very first post was this one:
Where I said, and I quote:
I don't know that I would call this a kernel regression, as the kernel doesn't dynamically change parameters based on applied power state. That's what you need something like Jupiter for..
In that thread I also show two distinctly different platforms and how they don't show any symptom of the bug.
In my very first post I said I wouldn't call it a regression, I neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the bug.
If you follow the initial conversation fully, you'll have the context that sets up the rest of my comments on the matter across all of the related threads (which really says there are too many articles, and not enough action which was and remains my chief complaint). You'll also find several comments where I helped people check for kernel options needed test to determine if they have this "bug".
Comment
-
Originally posted by fewt View PostIt doesn't prove anything. Prove that I read the article before commenting. I don't read Phoronix every day, and hadn't even noticed this article until July 1st.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI can comprehend fine. I can comprehend that you were speculating through out the whole time and later tried to offer an absolute answer that "it does not exist" and despite being pointed out that because you could not replicate it and had your own theory you were unwilling to accept that it did exist until after the article was published. BTW it is not as small of a subset as you think it is. Does it effect 100% of systems, absolutely not but I would wager that it effects a minimum of 5% of the systems out there if not more.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostBy the way, claiming that it impacts 5% is wild speculation in itself.
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI was actually referring to your very first post on this article/thread
Actually your very first post told people to "Time to let it go and move on, or actually spend time finding the problem instead of writing articles about it." which Michael did. He spent his own time and money isolating it down.
My very first comment in relation to this "regression" was in April, it isn't too much to ask for to ask for the bug to be identified a few months later.
(fourth request)
One more thing .. While this issue was being bisected for months, at what point was the kernel team engaged to help identify or correct the issue?
Searching lKML seems to indicate that this "regression" hasn't been reported yet. When will Michael take his findings to the kernel team?
After another 25 articles about it perhaps?
Comment
Comment